Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

R.VELAYUTHAM versus REGISTRAR OF CO OP. SOCIETIES

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


R.Velayutham v. Registrar of Co op. Societies - W.P. No.7175 of 2005 [2007] RD-TN 2900 (5 September 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS



DATED : 05/09/2007

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM

W.P. No.7175 of 2005,

WPMP. No.7830 of 2005

and

WVMP. No.2276 of 2005

1. R.Velayutham

2. C.Paramasivam

3. K.Veerasamy

4. G.Selvaraj

5. S.Muruganantham

6. M.Selvakumar

7. R.Paneerselvam

8. K.Kandavel

9. S.Selvaraj

10. P.Rajendran ..Petitioners Vs

1. The Registrar of Co-op. Societies

Kilpauk

Chennai 10.

2. The Joint Registrar of Co-op. Societies Cuddalore Region

Cuddalore.

3. The Deputy Registrar of Co-op. Societies Virudhachalam Circle

Virudhachalam.

4. II~556

Tholar Primary Agricultural Co-op. Bank Ltd. rep. By its Special Officer

Tholar Post

Tittagudi Taluk

Cuddalore District. ..Respondents Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari calling for the entire records relating to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings No.RC-201014/98/PACB-1, dated 3.4.2004 and quash the same. For Petitioners : Mr.C.Prakasam For Respondents : Mr.I.Paranthaman, Additional Govt. Pleader ORDER



This writ petition has been brought forth seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the orders of the first respondent in its proceedings dated 3.4.2004.

2.The Court heard the learned Counsel on either side.

3.The petitioners are working in Tholar Primary Agricultural Co-op. Bank Ltd., Tittagudi Taluk, the fourth respondent herein. Pursuant to their respective appointments, they were getting their salary. Pursuant to the settlement under Sec.18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, they were receiving the salary from 1st July, 1997 onwards. While the matter stood thus, the first respondent passed the impugned order directing all the other respondents to reduce the salary as per the G.O.Ms.No.131, dated 4.6.1999, with retrospective effect from 1.7.1997.

4.The learned Counsel for the petitioners in support of the writ petition would submit that once the salary was fixed and paid pursuant to the settlement arrived at under Sections 12(3) and 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and they have been receiving the payment also, there is no question of varying or revising the salary even without a notice and enquiry in that regard, and hence, it has got to be set aside.

5.The Court heard the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.

6.Needless to say that in a case where the salary of the employees was fixed pursuant to the settlement under Sections 12(3) and 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act and it has also been implemented and they have been receiving so, no question of re-fixation or revision of the salary even without making an enquiry or giving at least an opportunity of being heard, would arise. In the instant case, it has not been done so. The only reply given by the respondents, is that they were to implement G.O.Ms.No.131 dated 4.6.1999, with retrospective effect from 1.7.1997 which, in the opinion of this Court, cannot be done. In a case where the salary has been fixed pursuant to the settlement under Sections 12(3) and 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the employees were getting the salary accordingly, there is no question of re-fixation or revision of salary without giving notice to them or making an enquiry in that regard that would arise. If allowed, it would be a glaring example of offending the principles of natural justice which cannot be permitted. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside. There is no impediment for the department to call for explanation from the employees, give sufficient opportunity of being heard and pass suitable orders as one required under the circumstances. It is also made clear that till such time, the petitioners are entitled to get the salary what they have been receiving pursuant to the settlement originally entered into between the management and the employees. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected WPMP is closed. nsv/

To:

1. The Registrar of Co-op. Societies

Kilpauk

Chennai 10.

2. The Joint Registrar of Co-op. Societies Cuddalore Region

Cuddalore.

3. The Deputy Registrar of Co-op. Societies Virudhachalam Circle

Virudhachalam.

4. The Special Officer

II-556

Tholar Primary Agricultural Co-op. Bank Ltd. Tholar Post

Tittagudi Taluk

Cuddalore District.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.